Opinion
2014–10941 Ind.No. 6981/12
01-23-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Francis BENJAMIN, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Paul Hastings, LLP [Katherine Drooyan and Ryan Kilpatrick ], of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Paul Hastings, LLP [Katherine Drooyan and Ryan Kilpatrick ], of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Kolupa, 13 N.Y.3d 786, 787, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430 ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the statement he made to law enforcement officials at the precinct station house was not subject to suppression, as the record demonstrated that he was properly administered Miranda warnings and, thereafter, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ; People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 288–290, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327 ; People v. Harris, 163 A.D.3d 993, 79 N.Y.S.3d 662 ; People v. Dunbar, 104 A.D.3d 198, 206, 958 N.Y.S.2d 764, affd 24 N.Y.3d 304, 998 N.Y.S.2d 679, 23 N.E.3d 946 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established in the first instance that the pretrial identification procedure was not improper, and the defendant failed to establish that it was unduly suggestive (see People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335–336, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608 ; People v. Martin, 116 A.D.3d 981, 982, 983 N.Y.S.2d 813 ).The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.